The Labor enquirer., 1887-06-04
THE LAW
How = Plain Constitutional
Right is Being Stolen
Away.
DIARI!lHe Nc lHE q PEOPLE. 3,
Why Ds.'t ~ Kaishtsef Labor Garry
this = ~ sUaitst States 1. q
suprsns Cosrti
For ths EnauItsf.

~ - ~ -sH. Fl ~
For the Enquifef. ~
The second amendment to the United
States constitution provides that ,"Ths
right q ~ psapls to keep. and bear arms
shall not IS iaos1i' q
The Colorsd8 \ sopstitutien, article tao
section thirtss6, y a follows, aThat the
right Of n6st tsrson 70 keep and bear arms
in defeast of his home, person and prop.
srty, ot Ia aid Of the civil power when
thereto legally summoned, shall.be called
IN nquestion; but nothing herein contain
sdshail be construed to justly the practice
Of fcarrying concealed vedpons."
The session latp X our state for the
year 1885 o.; ;pn6 ) 70 provide that if any
person ndt u "a officer, within any city,
town o. Village, shall carry concealed up
Lon or about his person any pistol, bowie
knife, dagger or any other desdly 4sapon
he shall be fined not less thah fifty dol
lars nor more than two. bundled dollars,
or imprisonment in jail notlsss than ten
nor more than sixty days, oF both fine and
imprisonment in the discretion of the
court.
There is an ordinance of the city Of
Denver, SEQ rsvisiqN of ordinances ofN1ss5
page 369, section ven, which is substan-
tally in the lat @ke Of the state law,
which says that tllGIHne shall not be less
than ten not more than two hundred dol
lars for carrying concealed weapons in
Denver. Under the rules of decisions a
| prosecution under this ordinance would
be no bar to proceeding under the stat
ute, for the same offense. How is thAtfo
putting man twice in jeopardy n hs
same act? ss
First, we find in the national instrn.
ment, that the right ''to bear arms shall
not be infringed." Nothing is said about
the manner in which they shall be borne
whether on the outside or the inside OF
the garments. ~
Secondly, it seems that the state consti.
tuition endeavors to encroach upon that
of the United States in that regard by
seeking to give our legislature the power
of Furnishing the "practice" of carrying
such weapons.
Thirdly, the above statue and ordinance
seem to conflict with both Sastitutions,
because they provide for dizhing per-
sons for. simply carrying the Weapons.
Now a serious question arises whether
having weapon once concealed about
the person is the practice" .of carrying it,
so as to sanction these enactments, under
the state constitution.
Fourth, we do not deny that there are
precedents going to show that state legis-
latures have the power to provide for the
punishment of carrying concealed weap-
Ons on the theory that 1t is police reg
ulatiOn.
State vs.. Wilforth 7O4, Missouri 52S:
"Such legislation has been held null and
void in the states of Kentucky and Tenne-
see."
We are not aware that this question has
ever been presented to or decided by the
Upited States supreme court, or by the
fscOurt of last resort" in this state.
ii 1t is asserted that Mr.. Robert Morrison,
one of our best constitutional lawyers, con-
tends that such legislation is in violation
Of the constitutional rights of the citizen.
The criminal classes violate this law con-
tinually; many of the rich disregard it.:
yet it is thrust at our most law-abiding
citizens, and ought not to hold good if
first principles are to be observed. In
Ohio, Nebraska and some of the other
.kckoc L. kLck LoboIf :.